THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. vs. HABIB ISA HABIB MOHMAD CHOUS AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:11346
1098.2018FA Group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1098 of 2018
1. Nagorao S/o Digambarrao Kandharkar,
Age 57 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture
2. Radhesham S/o Digambarrao Kandharkar,
Age 47 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture
3. Pravin S/o Digambarrao Kandharkar,
Age 34 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture
4. Indubai w/o Digambarrao Kandharkar,
Age 91 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture
5. Shobhabai W/o Nagorao Kandharkar,
Age 52 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture
R/o : Ahmedpur, Taluka : Ahmedpur,
District : Latur
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for appellants
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.
Mr. Ram Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.2.
_______________________________________________________________
WITH
FIRST APPEAL 802 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.

1

1098.2018FA Group
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Nagorao s/o. Digambar Kandharkar,
Age- 51 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Radheshyam s/o. Digambar Kandharkar,
Age- 41 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Pravin s/o. Nagorao Kandharkar,
Age – 25 years, Occu. Agril.,
4. Indubai w/o. Digambar Kandharkar,
Age- 85 years, Occu. Agril.,
5. Shobhabai w/o. Nagorao Kandharkar,
Age- 45 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Bhojaram s/o. Devichand Bhagat,
Age: Major years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
… RESPONDENT
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 804 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.

2

1098.2018FA Group
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Harishchandra s/o. Chagan Bhagat,
Age: Major years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
… RESPONDENT
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 805 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Zulfikar s/o. Salauddin Kazi,
Age- Major years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Jamiroddin s/o. Mainoddin Kazi,
Age- Major years, Occu. Agril.,
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Sumanbai w/o. Waman Kandarkar,
Age- 50 years, Occu. Agril.,

3

1098.2018FA Group
2. Ravikant s/o. Waman Kandarkar,
Age- 30 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Ratnakar s/o. Waman Kandarkar,
Age- 28 years, Occu. Agril.,
4. Dinkar s/o. Waman Kandarkar,
Age- 27 years, Occu. Agril.,
5. Karan s/o. Deepak Kandharkar,
Minor U/G. Of his mother.
6. Arjun s/o. Deepak Kandharkar,
Minor U/G. Of his mother,
Yogita w/o. Deepak Kandharkar,
(Guardian for claimant Nos. 5 & 6)
Age- 28 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 807 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Mainoddin Amiroddin Khatik
Died through LRs.
1. Rabiyabi w/o Mainoddin Kureshi (Bakkar Khatik),
Age 70 years, Occu. H.H.
2. Azim S/o Mainoddin Kureshi,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agri and Business,
3. Naser S/o Mainoddin Kureshi,
Age 45 years, Occu. Business,

4

1098.2018FA Group
4. Kalim S/o. Mainoddin Kureshi,
Age 50 years, Occu. Business
1 to 4 R/o Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
5. Akhtar W/o Abdul Raheman,
Age 52 years, Occu. H.H.
R/o Maysur Colony, Latur.
6. Latila /o Ismail Kureshi,
Age 42 years, Occu. H.H.,
R/o Kallamb Tq. Kallamb,
Dist. Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Balaram s/o. Chagan Bhagat (Died)
His LRs.
Kamalbai w/o. Balaram Bhagat,
Age- Major years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 809 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.

5

1098.2018FA Group
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Habib s/o. Isa S/o. Habib Mohammad Chaus,
Age- 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Habib s/o. Khijar S/o. Habib Mohammad Chaus,
Age-20 years, Occ. Agril.,
Both R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for appellant/State.
Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant no.2.
Mr. A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondents.
_______________________________________________________________
…
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 101 OF 2023
IN FA/807/2014
Mainoddin Amiroddin Khatik
Died through LRs.
1. Azim S/o Mainoddin Qureshi @ Khatik
Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture
2. Kalim S/o. Mainoddin Kureshi
Age Major Yrs. Occu. Agriculture
3. Naser S/o Mainoddin Kureshi
Age Major Yrs. Occu. Agriculture
All R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District : Latur.
… APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.

6

1098.2018FA Group
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 102 OF 2023
IN FA/806/2014
1. Sumanbai w/o. Waman Kandarkar,
Age- 60 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Ravikant s/o. Waman Kandarkar,
Age- 40 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Ratnakar s/o. Waman Kandarkar,
Age- 38 years, Occu. Agril.,
4. Dinkar s/o. Waman Kandarkar,
Age- 37 years, Occu. Agril.,
5. Karan s/o. Deepak Kandharkar,
Minor U/G. Of his mother.
6. Arjun s/o. Deepak Kandharkar,
Minor U/G. Of his mother,
Yogita w/o. Deepak Kandharkar,
(Guardian for claimant Nos. 5 & 6)
Age- 28 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
… APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 103 OF 2023
IN FA/805/2014
1. Zulfikar S/o Salauddin Kazi,
Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture,

7

1098.2018FA Group
2. Jamiroddin S/o Mainoddin Kazi,
Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District : Latur
… APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through- The Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 104 OF 2023
IN FA/809/2014
1. Habib Isa S/o Habib Mohammad Chaus,
Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture
2. Habib Khijar S/o Habib Mohammad Chaus,
Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture,
All R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
District: Latur.
… APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 105 OF 2023
IN FA/803/2023
1. Bhojaram S/o Devichand Bhagat,
Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture,

8

1098.2018FA Group
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District: Latur.
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 106 2023
IN FA/808/2014
Balaram S/o Chagan Bhagat,
Died through LRs.
1. Kamalbai W/o Balaram Bhagat,
Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District: Latur
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 61 OF 2024
IN FA/804/2014
Harishchandra S/o Chagan Bhagat,
Died through LR
1. Subhash S/o Harishchandra Bhagat
Age 55 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District : Latur.
… APPLICANT

9

1098.2018FA Group
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer
Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for
applicant/applicants
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.
Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent no.2.
_______________________________________________________________
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2266 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Yogesh s/o Subhash Shetkar
Age-24 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2267 of 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT

10

1098.2018FA Group
VERSUS
1. Vilas s/o Raghunath Navrange
Age-40 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2268 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Babu s/o Ramling Shetkar
Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2269 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS

11

1098.2018FA Group
1. Chandrashekar s/o Ramlu Ayya
Age-45 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2270 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Suryakant s/o Ramlu Ayya
Age-45 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2271 of 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Shrihari s/o Hanmant Navrange
Age-54 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist Latur

12

1098.2018FA Group
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2272 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Satyanarayan s/o Ramlu Ayya
Age-50 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2273 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Mayur s/o Subhash Shetkar
Age-22 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS

13

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2274 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Nagnath s/o Hanmant Navrange
Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.
Mr. V.B. Patil & Mr. Satish S. Deshmukh, Advocates for respondent no.1.
_______________________________________________________________
WITH
X-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 39144 OF 2016
IN FA/2273/2013
Mayur s/o Subhash Shetkar
Age 30 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist. Latur
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur. … RESPONDENTS

14

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
X-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 41987 OF 2017
IN FA/2269/2013
Chandrashekar s/o Ramlu Ayya
Age; Majors, Occu: Agril.,
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 42048 OF 2017
IN FA/2270/2013
Suryakant s/o Ramlu Ayya,
Age; Majors, Occu: Agril.,
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 18614 OF 2020
IN FA/2274/2013
Nagnath s/o Hanmant Navrange
Age 67 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
… APPLICANT

15

1098.2018FA Group
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 51 OF 2022
IN FA/2272/2013
Satyanarayan s/o Ramlu Ayya
Age; Majors, Occu: Agril
R/o Ahmadpur, Tq. Ahmadpur,
Dist Latur.
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 168 OF 2024
IN FA/2266/2013
Yogesh s/o Subhash Shetkar
Age 32 years, Occu: Agril
R/o Ahmadpur, Tq. Ahmadpur,
Dist Latur.
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS

16

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 210 OF 2025
IN FA/2267/2013
Vilas S/o Raghunath Navrange
Age-53 yrs, Occu- Agril
R/o Ahmadpur, Dist Latur
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 211 OF 2025
IN FA/2268/2013
Babu s/o Ramling Shetkar (Deceased)
Through its LRs.
1. Kaushlyabai W/o. Baburao Shetkar
Age: 71 Years, Occu: Household
2. Madhav S/o Baburao Shetkar
Age: 41 Years, Occu: Agriculturist
3. Ganesh S/o Baburao Shetkar
Age: 33 Years, Occu: Agriculturist
All R/o. Bhoi Galli, Ahmedpur,
Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur
… APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur

17

1098.2018FA Group
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 212 OF 2025
IN FA/2271/2013
Shrihari s/o Hanmant Navrange
Age-66 yrs, Occu- Agril
R/o Ahmadpur, Dist Latur
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
… RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Satish S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.
Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocates for respondent no.2.
_______________________________________________________________
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2011
1. Habib Isa s/o Habib Mohd. Chaus,
Age: 73 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
2. Hasina Begum w/o Habib Isa Chaus,
Age: 53 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o as above.

18

1098.2018FA Group
3. Habib Azhar s/o Habib Isa Chaus,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o as above.
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr.V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the appellants
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.
Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocates for respondent no.2.
_______________________________________________________________
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1304 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
… APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Sujatabai w/o Sheshrao Bansode
Age-55 yrs, Occu. Agri & H.H.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1305 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur

19

1098.2018FA Group
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
… APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Mehaboob Ahmed s/o Ajimoddin Kazi
Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
2. Mujiboddin s/o Mehaboob Ahmed Kazi
Age 27 yrs. Occu. Agri
r/o as above
3. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1306 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Balaji s/o Narayan Desai (Died)
Through LRs.
1(1) Smt. Vimalbai w/o Balaji Desai
Age. 55 years Occu. Agril.
1(2) Pranali D/o Balaji Desai
Age. 29 years Occu. Agril.
1(3) Prasanna s/o Balaji Desai
Age. 35 years Occu. Agril.
1(4) Sainath s/o Balaji Desai
Age. 32 years Occu. Agril.
R/o. Nanded Taluka and District Nanded

20

1098.2018FA Group
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
… APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Hafizoddin s/o Variroddin Kazi
Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Basavraj s/o Shivraj Irphale
Age-33 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
2. Ravishankar s/o Shivraj Irphale
Age 28 yrs. Occu. Agri
r/o as above

21

1098.2018FA Group
3. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1309 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Kashinath s/o Santram Kambale (Died)
Through Legal Representatives.
1(1) Smt. Harubai w/o Kashinath Kamble
Age. 67 years Occu. Agril.
1(2) Manoj s/o Kashinath Kamble
Age. 27 years Occu. Agril.
1(3) Santram s/o Kashinath Kamble
Age. 46 years Occu. Agril.
1(4) Umabai w/o Anil Gaikwad
Age. 40 years Occu. Agril.
1(5) Sohambai w/o Dhanaji Suryawanshi
Age. 38 years Occu. Agril.
1(6) Ramabai w/o Gautam Sonkamble
Age. 36 years Occu. Agril.
1(7) Nitabai w/o Raju Kamble
Age. 34 years Occu. Agril.
1(8) Mangalbai w/o Madhav Kamble
Age. 32 years Occu. Agril.
R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka Ahemadpur
District Latur

22

1098.2018FA Group
2. Vishwanath s/o Santram Kambale
Age 66 yrs. Occu. Agri
R/o as above
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1310 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Latifoddin s/o Ajimoddin Kazi (Died)
Through Legal Representatives.
1(1) Bilkis Begum w/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. 80 years Occu. Agril.
1(2) Ajimoddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. 53 years Occu. Agril.
1(3) Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. 44 years Occu. Agril.
1(4) Khaja s/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. 39 years Occu. Agril.
1(5) Durdana Begum w/o Mazhar Sayyad
Age. 48 years Occu. Agril.
1(6) Farzanabegum D/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. 56 years Occu. Agril.
1(7) Sultanabegum w/o Yunus Sayyad
Age. 54 years Occu. Agril.
1(8) Sameena w/o Laiq Farooqi
Age. 40 years Occu. Agril.

23

1098.2018FA Group
1(9) Rijvanbe D/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. 38 years Occu. Agril.
R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka Ahemadpur
District Latur
2. Ajamoddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age- 37 yrs. Occu. Agri
3. Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi (Died)
Through LRs.
1/3-A.Taheniyat w/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 43 years. Occu. Agril.
2/3-B.Rimsha D/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 17 years. Occu. Education.
3/3-C.Muhammad Riyan s/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 15 years. Occu. Education.
4/3-D.Mohammad s/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 13 years. Occu. Education.
The applicants No 1/3-C and 1/3-D are
The Minor under Guardian of Natural Mother
i.e. Applicant No 1/3-A.
All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur
Dist. Latur
4. Khwaja s/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age-37 yrs, Occu. Agri
5. Sayyad Durdana Began w/o Mazhar
Age- 37 yrs, Occu. Agri
All R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
6. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS

24

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1311 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
… APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Machindra s/o Nagorao Gaikwad
Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
2. Shripal s/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age Major, Occu. Agri
r/o as above
3. Archana d/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age Major, Occu. Agri
r/o as above
4. Mangesh s/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age Major, Occu. Agri
r/o as above
5. Sushila w/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age Major, Occu. Agri
r/o as above
6. Pratibha d/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age Major, Occu. Agri
r/o as above
7. Nagesh s/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age Major, Occu. Agri
8. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS

25

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
… APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Shrihari s/o Hanmant Navrange
Age-52 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
2. Narhari s/o Hanmant Navrange (Died)
Through LRs.
2(1) Smt. Pushpabai w/o Narhari Navrange
Age. 67 years Occu. Agril.
2(2) Kiran s/o Narhari Navrange
Age. 47 years Occu. Agril.
2(3) Jayant s/o Narhari Navrange
Age. 44 years Occu. Agril.
2(4) Rahul s/o Narhari Navrange
Age. 37 years Occu. Agril.
2(5) Jyoti w/o Narayan Kamble
Age. 50 years Occu. Agril.
2(6) Anjali w/o Ramesh Waghmare
Age. 42 years Occu. Agril.
2(7) Megha w/o Siddharth Shelke
Age. 40 years Occu. Agril.
R/o. N 2 Cidco Aurangabad
Taluka and District Aurangabad.

26

1098.2018FA Group
3. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
4. Executive Engineer,
Local Division, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1341 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Habib Isa s/o Habib Mohamad Chous
Age-69 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
2. Hasina Begam w/o Habib Isa Chous
Age 50 yrs, Occ. Agri
r/o as above
3. Habib Azhar s/o Habib Isa Chous
Age 27 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o as above
4. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1342 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
… APPELLANT
VERSUS

27

1098.2018FA Group
Rafiyoddin s/o Vaziroddin Kazi (Died)
Through LRs.
1/A Anjumbegum w/o Rafiyoddin Kazi
Age 72 years. Occu. Agril.
1/B Mukhtar s/o Rafiyoddin Kazi
Age 55 years. Occu. Agril.
1/C Sabir s/o Rafiyoddin Kazi
Age 42 years. Occu. Agril.
1/D Faiyaz s/o Rafiyoddin Kzi
Age 40 years. Occu. Agril.
1/E Tambubee w/o Shiddik Pathan
Age 52 years. Occu. Agril.
1/F Kausarbee w/o Anwar Sayyad
Age 51 years. Occu. Agril.
1/G Taslim w/o Sajid Pathan
Age 48 years. Occu. Service
1/H Latifa w/o Jabbar Sayyad
Age 46 years. Occu. Agril.
All R/o Kalegaon Taluka Ahemadpur
Dist. Latur.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1343 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
… APPELLANT
VERSUS

28

1098.2018FA Group
1. Sardaroddin s/o Ajamoddin Kazi
Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.
Mr. G.K. Sontakke and Mr.A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr.V.G. Sakolkar, Advocates
for the respondent no.1
_______________________________________________________________
WITH
X-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 10772 OF 2019
IN FA/1343/2019
Sardaroddin s/o Ajamoddin Kazi
Age-69 yrs, Occu. Agri
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through,
The Dist. Collector Latur
2. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation through,
The Executive Engineer, Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
[Purna Project] Latur
… RESPONDENTS

29

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 91 OF 2022
IN FA/1310/2019
1. Latifoddin s/o Ajimoddin Kazi (Died)
Through Legal Representatives.
1/1 Bilkis Begum w/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. 78 years Occu. Agril.
1/2 Ajimoddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. 51 years Occu. Agril.
1/3 Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi (Died)
Through LRs.
1/3-A.Taheniyat w/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 43 years. Occu. Agril.
2/3-B.Rimsha D/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 17 years. Occu. Education.
3/3-C.Muhammad Riyan s/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 15 years. Occu. Education.
4/3-D.Mohammad s/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 13 years. Occu. Education.
The applicants No 1/3-C and 1/3-D are
The Minor under Guardian of Natural Mother
i.e. Applicant No 1/3-A.
All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur
Dist. Latur
1/4 Khaja s/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. 37 years Occu. Agril.
1/5 Durdana Begum w/o Mazhar Sayyad
Age. 46 years Occu. Agril.
1/6 Farzanabegum D/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. 54 years Occu. Agril.

30

1098.2018FA Group
1/7 Sultanabegum w/o Yunus Sayyad
Age. 52 years Occu. Agril.
1/8 Sameena w/o Laiq Farooqi
Age. 38 years Occu. Agril.
1/9 Rijvanbe D/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. 36 years Occu. Agril.
All R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka Ahemadpur
District Latur
2. Ajmoddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. Major.years. Occ. Agril.
3. Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi (Died)
Through LRs.
1/3-A.Taheniyat w/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 43 years. Occu. Agril.
2/3-B.Rimsha D/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 17 years. Occu. Education.
3/3-C.Muhammad Riyan s/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 15 years. Occu. Education.
4/3-D.Mohammad s/o Habiboddin Kazi
Age. 13 years. Occu. Education.
4. Khaja s/o Latifoddin Kazi
Age. Major.years. Occ. Agril.
5. Sayyad Durdana Begum Mazhar
Age. Major.years. Occ. Agril.
All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahmadpur
Dist. Latur
… APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through,
The Dist. Collector Latur

31

1098.2018FA Group
2. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation through,
The Executive Engineer, Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
[Purna Project] Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 48 OF 2023
IN FA/1342/2019
Rafiyoddin s/o Vaziroddin Kazi (Died)
Through LRs.
1/A Anjumbegum w/o Rafiyoddin Kazi
Age 72 years. Occu. Agril.
1/B Mukhtar s/o Rafiyoddin Kazi
Age 55 years. Occu. Agril.
1/C Sabir s/o Rafiyoddin Kazi
Age 42 years. Occu. Agril.
1/D Faiyaz s/o Rafiyoddin Kzi
Age 40 years. Occu. Agril.
1/E Tambubee w/o Shiddik Pathan
Age 52 years. Occu. Agril.
1/F Kausarbee w/o Anwar Sayyad
Age 51 years. Occu. Agril.
1/G Taslim w/o Sajid Pathan
Age 48 years. Occu. Service
1/H Latifa w/o Jabbar Sayyad
Age 46 years. Occu. Agril.
All R/o Kalegaon Taluka Ahemadpur
Dist. Latur.
… APPLICANTS

32

1098.2018FA Group
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through,
The Dist. Collector Latur
2. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation through,
The Executive Engineer, Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
[Purna Project] Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 108 OF 2023
IN FA/1308/2019
1. Basavraj s/o Shivraj Irphale
Age: 45 yrs, Occu: Agril.
2. Ravishankar s/o Shivraj Irphale
Age: 40 yrs, Occu: Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
… APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 109 OF 2023
IN FA/1309/2019
1. Kashinath s/o Santram Kambale (Died)
Through Legal Representatives.

33

1098.2018FA Group
1(1) Smt. Harubai w/o Kashinath Kamble
Age. 65 years Occu. Agril.
1(2) Manoj s/o Kashinath Kamble
Age. 25 years Occu. Agril.
1(3) Santram s/o Kashinath Kamble
Age. 45 years Occu. Agril.
1(4) Umabai w/o Anil Gaikwad
Age. 38 years Occu. Agril.
1(5) Sohambai w/o Dhanaji Suryawanshi
Age. 36 years Occu. Agril.
1(6) Ramabai w/o Gautam Sonkamble
Age. 34 years Occu. Agril.
1(7) Nitabai w/o Raju Kamble
Age. 32 years Occu. Agril.
1(8) Mangalbai w/o Madhav Kamble
Age. 30 years Occu. Agril.
2. Vishwanath s/o Santram Kamble
Age 75 yrs. Occu. Agri
R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist Latur.
3. Sopan s/o Santram Kambe (Died)
Through LRs.
3/1 Laxmibai w/o sopan Kamble
Age 75 years. Occu. Agril.
3/2 Pandhari s/o sopan Kamble
Age 53 years. Occu. Agril.
3/3 Dnyanoba s/o Sopan Kamble
Age 50 years. Occu. Agril.
3/4 Vimalbai w/o Uttamrao Shirsagar
Age 56 years. Occu. Agril.

34

1098.2018FA Group
3/5 Kamalbai w/o Dayanand Kokate
Age 47 years. Occu. Agril.
All R/ Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist. Latur
… APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through,
The Dist. Collector Latur
2. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation through,
The Executive Engineer, Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
[Purna Project] Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 110 2023
IN FA/1306/2019
1. Balaji s/o Narayan Desai [Died]
Through LRs.
1/A. Smt. Vimalbai w/o Balaji Desai
Age 52 years Occu. Agril.
1/B. Pranali D/o Balaji Desai
Age 27 years Occu. Education
1/C. Prasanna s/o Balaji Desai
Age 33 years Occu. Education.
1/D. Sainath s/o Balaji Desai
Age 30 years Occu. Education
All R/o Nanded Tq. and Dist. Latur
… APPLICANTS
VERSUS

35

1098.2018FA Group
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through,
The Dist. Collector Latur
2. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation through,
The Executive Engineer, Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
[Purna Project] Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 111 OF 2023
IN FA/1307/2019
Hafizoddin s/o Variroddin Kazi
Age 69 years. Occu. Agri.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through,
The Dist. Collector Latur
2. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation through,
The Executive Engineer, Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
[Purna Project] Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 112 OF 2023
IN FA/ 1311/2019
1. Machindra s/o Nagorao Gaikwad
Age-69 yrs, Occu. Agri
2. Sushila w/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age 40 years. Occu. Agri

36

1098.2018FA Group
3. Nagesh s/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age 37 years, Occu. Agri
4. Mangesh s/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age 32 years, Occu. Agri
5. Shripal s/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age 64 years, Occu. Agri
6. Pratibha D/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age 34 years, Occu. Agri
7. Archana D/o Machindra Gaikwad
Age 35 years, Occu. Agri
All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist Latur.
… APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through,
The Dist. Collector Latur
2. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation through,
The Executive Engineer, Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
[Purna Project] Latur
… RESPONDENTS
X-OBJECTION NO. 113 OF 2023
IN FA/1305/2019
1. Mehaboob Ahmed s/o Ajimoddin Kazi
Age-69 yrs, Occu. Agri
2. Mujiboddin s/o Mehaboob Ahmed Kazi
Age 36 yrs. Occu. Agri
Both R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
… APPLICANTS

37

1098.2018FA Group
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through,
The Dist. Collector Latur
2. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation through,
The Executive Engineer, Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
[Purna Project] Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 114 OF 2023
IN FA/1340/2019
1. Shrihari s/o Hanmant Navrange
Age 62 years. Occu. Agri.
R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahmadpur
Dist. Latur
2. Narhari s/o Hanmant Navrange (Died)
Through LRs.
2/1 Smt. Pushpabai w/o Narhari Navrange
Age. 65 years Occu. Agril.
2/2 Kiran s/o Narhari Navrange
Age. 45 years Occu. Agril.
2/3 Jayant s/o Narhari Navrange
Age. 42 years Occu. Agril.
2/4 Rahul s/o Narhari Navrange
Age. 35 years Occu. Agril.
2/5 Jyoti w/o Narayan Kamble
Age. 48 years Occu. Agril.
2/6 Anjali w/o Ramesh Waghmare
Age. 40 years Occu. Agril.

38

1098.2018FA Group
2/7 Megha w/o Siddharth Shelke
Age. 38 years Occu. Agril.
All R/o Aurangabad N2 Cidco
Dist. Aurangabad.
… APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through,
The Dist. Collector Latur
2. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation through,
The Executive Engineer, Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
[Purna Project] Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 115 OF 2023
IN FA/1304/2019
1. Sujatabai w/o Sheshrao Bansode
Age-65 yrs, Occu. Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur
… APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through, The Dist. Collector Latur
2. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation through,
The Executive Engineer, Latur
Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
[Purna Project] Latur
… RESPONDENTS

39

1098.2018FA Group
_______________________________________________________________
Mr.G.K. Sontakke, Advocate for applicant/applicants
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.
Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent no.2.
_______________________________________________________________
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4216 OF 2017
1. Manmath Narayan Shetkar (Desai),
Through his LRs.
1.A Laxmibai Manmath Shetkar (Desai)
Age:- 60 years, Occ. H.H.
1.B Archana Manmath Shetkar (Desai)
Age:- 46 years, Occ. H.H.
1.C Satish Manmath Shetkar (Desai)
Age:- 42 years, Occ. Business
1.D Sharan Manmath Shetkar (Desai)
Age:- 38 years, Occ. Business
All R/o Ahamadpur, Tq. Ahamdpur,
Dist. Latur.
2. Ravishankar S/o. Narayan Shetkar,
Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri.,
Both R/o. Ahmedpur
Tq. Ahmedpur Dist. Latur.
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through : Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Purna Project, Latur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Latur.
… RESPONDENTS

40

1098.2018FA Group
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. P.P. More, Advocate for appellant nos.1A to 1D.
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.
Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate for respondent no.3.
_______________________________________________________________
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4363 OF 2016
1. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
2. The State of Maharashtra through
The Collector, Latur.
3. Special Land Acquisition, Purna
Project, Latur.
… APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Manmath s/o Narayan Shetkar (Desai)(Died)
Through LRs.
1.A Laxmibai Manmath Shetkar (Desai),
Age:- 60 years, Occ. H.H,
1.B. Archana Manmath Shetkar (Desai),
Age:- 46 years, Occ. H.H,
1.C. Satish Manmath Shetkar (Desai),
Age:- 42 years, Occ. Business,
1.D. Sharan Manmath Shetkar (Desai),
Age:- 38 years, Occ. Business,
All R/o. Ahamadpur, Tq. Ahamdpur,
Dist. Latur.
… RESPONDENTS

41

1098.2018FA Group
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.
Mr.P.P. More, Advocate for respondent nos.1A to 1D.
_______________________________________________________________
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2324 OF 2018
1. Sangram S/o Kashinath Mahajan
Age: 54 Years, Occu: Agril.
2. Mahesh S/o Sangram Mahajan
Age: 21 Years, Occu: Agril.
All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1123 OF 2019
Baburao S/o Shivling Wadkar
Age; 59 years, Occu: Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS

42

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2019
Smt. Rukminbai W/O Baburao Wadkar
Age; 54 years, Occu: Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2839 OF 2019
Ram S/o Trimbakappa Mahajan,
Age; 71 years, Occu: Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2840 OF 2019
Samb s/o Trimbakappa Mahajan
Age; 57 years, Occu: Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
... APPELLANT
VERSUS

43

1098.2018FA Group
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1655 OF 2024
Baburao S/o Shivling Wadkar
Age; 52 years, Occu: Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1656 OF 2024
Ganesh S/o Manmath Wadkar
Age; 32 years, Occu: Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
… APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur. … RESPONDENTS

44

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1657 OF 2024
Motiram S/o Shivling Wadkar
Age; 49 years, Occu: Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
… APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1658 OF 2024
Yusufoddin s/o Jamiroddin Kazi
Age; 49 years, Occu: Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
… APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1659 OF 2024
Prabhavati W/o Laxman Wadje
Age; 44 years, Occu: Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
... APPELLANT

45

1098.2018FA Group
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1660 OF 2024
Manmath S/o Madhavrao Wadkar
Age; 54 years, Occu: Agril.
R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2909 OF 2024
Haribai W/o Shankar Mahajan (Dead)
Through her LRs.
1. Nagnath S/o. Shankarappa Mahajan
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
2. Panchwati W/o. Rajeshwar Bondge
Age: 47 Years, Occu: Household,
Both R/o. Ahmedpur,
Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
3. Chaya W/o. Baswaraj Karanje
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Household,

46

1098.2018FA Group
R/o. Ausa, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2956 OF 2024
1. Nagesh S/o Kedarnath Wadkar
Age: 22 Years, Occu: Agri.
2. Mahesh Kedarnath Wadkar
Age: 20 Years, Occu: Agril.
3. Shivbas S/o Kedarnath Wadkar
Age: 18 Years, Occu: Agril.
All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2025
Samb S/o. Shivling Wadkar (Dead)
Through its LRs
1. Mahanandabai W/o. Sambappa Warkad
Age: 70 Years, Occu: Household,

47

1098.2018FA Group
R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
2. Savita W/o. Shivling Usturge
Age: 53 Years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.
3. Sunita W/o. Lingeshwar Nandagavale
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Wadwal (Nagnath), Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.
4. Kalpana W/o. Trimbak Eshwarshette
Age: 47 Years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Deoni, Tq. Deoni,
Dist. Latur.
5. Rahul S/o. Sambappa Warkad
Age: 42 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
6. Shakuntala W/o. Sangmeshwar Thonte
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Parali (Vaijnath),
Parali (Vaijnath), Dist. Beed.
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2025
Vaijnath S/o. Shivling Wadkar (Dead)
Through its LRs

48

1098.2018FA Group
1. Smt. Laxmibai Vaijnath Wadkar
Age: 70 Years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
2. Smt. Shobha Vaijnath Akole
Age: 47 Years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Kalambar,
Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.
3. Sangameshwar Vaijnath Wadkar
Age: 54 Years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
4. Parvati Sambhaji Ashture
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Satala (Waygaon),
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
5. Mahadevi Santosh Husnale
Age: 38 Years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Ukadgaon,
Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.
Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent no.2.
_______________________________________________________________

49

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2289 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Sangram s/o Kashinath Mahajan
Age-50 yrs, Occ. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. Mahesh s/o Sangram Mahajan
Age-17 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o as above
3. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2290 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development Corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Motiram s/o Shivling Wadkar
Age-45 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS

50

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2291 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Samb s/o Shivling Wadkar
Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2292 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Baburao s/o Shivling Wadkar
Age-55 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS

51

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2293 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Yusufoddin s/o Jamiroddin Kazi
Age-45 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2294 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Nagesh s/o Kedarnath Wadkar
Age-17 yrs, Occ. Agri
2. Mahesh s/o Kedarnath Wadkar
Age-15 yrs, Occu. Agri
3. Shivba s/o Kedarnath Wadkar
Age-13 yrs, Occu. Agri
All minors U/G of mother
Sow. Anjanabai w/o Kedarnath Wadkar
Age-Major yrs, Occu. Household
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur

52

1098.2018FA Group
4. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2295 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Smt. Prabhavati w/o Laxman Wadje
Age-40 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2296 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Samb s/o Laxman Shetkar
Age-48 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur

53

1098.2018FA Group
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2297 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Sow. Rukminibai w/o Baburao Wadkar
Age-53 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2298 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Samb s/o Trimbakappa Mahajan
Age-53 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur

54

1098.2018FA Group
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2299 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Ganesh s/o Manmath Wadkar
Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2300 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Vaijanath s/o Shivling Wadkar
Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur

55

1098.2018FA Group
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2301 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Ram s/o Trimbakappa Mahajan
Age-67 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2302 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Smt. Haribai w/o Shankar Mahajan
Age-58 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS

56

1098.2018FA Group
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2303 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
(Under the Godavari Marathwada
Irrigation Development corporation
Ltd, Aurangabad)
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Manmath s/o Madhavrao Wadkar
Age-50 yrs, Occu. Agri
r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist Latur
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
… RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State.
Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18.12.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.03.2026
J U D G M E N T [Per Vaishali Patil – Jadhav, J.] :
. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned advocates for
the parties.

57

1098.2018FA Group
2. (I) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the
Reference Court vide judgment and award dated 21.03.2012 in Land
Acquisition Reference Nos. 94/2011 (Old No. 56/2008), 95/2011 (Old
No.57/2008), 96/2011 (Old No. 58/2008), 97/2011 (Old
No.59/2008), 98/2011 (Old No. 60/2008), 99/2011 (Old
No.61/2008), 100/2011 (Old No. 62/2008) and 312/2011 (Old
No.158/2008), First Appeal No. 1098/2018 is preferred by the land
owner/claimant. And, dissatisfied with enhancing the amount of
compensation, the acquiring body – Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation (“GMIDC”) has preferred First Appeal Nos.
802/2014, 803/2014, 804/2014, 805/2014, 806/2014, 807/2014,
808/2014 and 809/2014 against the same references. In seven First
Appeals filed by the acquiring body – GMIDC, the land
owners/claimants have preferred X-Objection Nos. 101/2023 in F.A.
No. 807/2014, 102/2023 in F.A. No. 806/2014, 103/2023 in F.A. No.
805/2014, 104/2023 in F.A. No. 809/2014, 105/2023 in F.A. No.
803/2014, 106/2023 in F.A. No. 808/2014 and 61/2024 in F.A. No.
804/2014.
(II) Dissatisfied with enhancing the amount of compensation, the
acquiring body – GMIDC has preferred First Appeal Nos. 2266/2013,
2267/2013, 2268/2013, 2269/2013, 2270/2013, 2271/2013,

58

1098.2018FA Group
2272/2013, 2273/2013 and 2274/2013 against the judgment and
award dated 09.02.2012 passed by the Reference Court in Land
Acquisition Reference Nos. 711/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008,
714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008.
In the First Appeals filed by the acquiring body – GMIDC, the land
owners/claimants have preferred X-Objection (Stamp) No.
39144/2016 in F.A. No. 2273/2013, X-Objection (Stamp)
No.41987/2017 in F.A. No. 2269/2013, X-Objection (Stamp) No.
42048/2017 in F.A. No. 2270/2013, X-Objection (Stamp) No.
18614/2020 in F.A. No. 2274/2013, X-Objection Nos. 51/2022 in F.A.
No. 2272/2013, 168/2024 in F.A. No. 2266/2013, 210/2025 in F.A.
No. 2267/2013, 211/2025 in F.A. No. 2268/2013 and 212/2025 in
F.A. No. 2271/2013.
(III) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the
Reference Court vide judgment and award dated 11.10.2010 in Land
Acquisition Reference Nos. 150/2007, 151/2007, 152/2007,
153/2007, 154/2007, 155/2007, 156/2007, 171/2007, 51/2008,
52/2008, 54/2008 and 55/2008, First Appeal No. 603/2011 is
preferred by the land owner/claimant and dissatisfied with enhancing
the amount of compensation First Appeal Nos. 1304/2019,
1305/2019, 1306/2019, 1307/2019, 1308/2019, 1309/2019,

59

1098.2018FA Group
1310/2019, 1311/2019, 1340/2019, 1341/2019, 1342/2019 and
1343/2019 are preferred by the acquiring body – GMIDC. In eleven
First Appeals filed by the acquiring body – GMIDC, the land
owners/claimants have preferred X-Objection (Stamp) No.10772/2019
in F.A. No. 1343/2019, X-Objection Nos. 91/2022 in F.A. No.
1310/2019, 48/2023 in F.A. No. 1342/2019, 108/2023 in F.A. No.
1308/2019, 109/2023 in F.A. No. 1309/2019, 110/2023 in F.A. No.
1306/2019, 111/2023 in F.A. No. 1307/2019, 112/2023 in F.A. No.
1311/2019, 113/2023 in F.A. No. 1305/2019, 114/2023 in F.A. No.
1340/2019 and 115/2023 in F.A. No. 1304/2019.
(IV) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the
Reference Court vide judgment and award dated 02.02.2011 in Land
Acquisition Reference No. 884/2008 First Appeal No. 4216/2017 is
preferred by the land owner/claimant. And, dissatisfied with
enhancing the amount of compensation, the acquiring body – GMIDC
has preferred First Appeal No. 4363/2016 against the same reference.
(V) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the
Reference Court vide judgment and award dated 16.12.2011 in Land
Acquisition Reference Nos. 695/2008, 696/2008, 697/2008,
698/2008, 699/2008, 700/2008, 701/2008, 702/2008, 703/2008,

60

1098.2018FA Group
705/2008, 706/2008, 707/2008, 708/2008, 709/2008 and 710/2008,
the land owners/claimants have preferred First Appeal Nos.
2324/2018, 1123/2019, 1409/2019, 2839/2019, 2840/2019,
1655/2024, 1656/2024, 1657/2024, 1658/2024, 1659/2024,
1660/2024, 2909/2024, 2956/2024, 325/2025 and 326/2025. And,
dissatisfied with enhancing the amount of compensation, the acquiring
body – GMIDC has preferred First Appeal Nos. 2289/2013,
2290/2013, 2291/2013, 2292/2013, 2293/2013, 2294/2013,
2295/2013, 2296/2013, 2297/2013, 2298/2013, 2299/2013,
2300/2013, 2301/2013, 2302/2013 and 2303/2013 against the same
references.
3. In the aforesaid five groups of first appeals, the agricultural
lands owned and possessed by the claimants, situated at Ahmedpur,
Tal. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur came to be acquired by the State
Government for GMIDC, for the construction of “Kalegaon Storage
Tank, Ahmedpur,” Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. Notifications under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter "the L.A. Act")
were published on 03.10.2004, 07.07.2006, 25.02.2006, 07.07.2006
and 03.12.2005 in Group Nos. I to V, respectively.

61

1098.2018FA Group
4. Thus, these five groups of first appeals are being taken up
together for hearing and decided by this common judgment as the
notifications under Section 4 of the L.A. Act are issued
contemporaneously and lands of the claimants are acquired for the
same project.
5. Learned advocates appearing for the claimants and X-objectors
submit that the land owners whose lands were acquired for the same
project i.e. “Kalegaon Storage Tank, Ahmedpur” had filed First Appeal
No. 1089 of 2015 (Kiran Ramrao Hivare Vs. The State of Maharashtra
& Ors.) with companion matters assailing the awards dated
05.02.2008, 06.02.2008 and 05.02.2008 passed by the Reference
Court. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Sunil P. Deshmukh and
R.G. Avachat) after evaluation of evidence partly allowed the First
Appeals, by common judgment dated 16.09.2019 (hereinafter referred
to as “parity judgment”) and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.
75/- per sq. ft. for non-agricultural lands and Rs.60/- per sq. ft. for
other lands and also modified the award to the extent of granting
interest from the date of award instead of granting from the date of
publication of Section 4 notification as awarded by the Reference
Court. Learned advocates for the claimants would therefore urge that
since the claimants have also lost the lands against acquisition for the

62

1098.2018FA Group
same project, by issuance of contemporaneous notifications under
Section 4, which are in proximity to one another and most importantly
the evidence in both cases being the same, they are entitled to parity
in compensation.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. A.V. Sakolkar appearing for the claimants,
while arguing First Appeal No. 1098/2018 would submit that, under
Section 4 of the L.A. Act, notification is required to be published in
three stages firstly it should be published in Official Gazette, secondly
it should be published in two daily newspapers circulated in the
locality and thirdly public notice of such notification is required to be
given at a convenient place of the village of which the lands are
proposed to be acquired. And last of the dates of such publication and
giving of such notice shall be considered as the last date of publication
of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act which is 03.10.2004 in
respect of First Appeal No.1098/2018, wherein the award dated
16.10.2006 is challenged. He would submit that this Court while
enhancing the compensation in the parity judgment has considered the
sale deeds dated 10.02.2004 in respect of Survey No. 88/1/1 and
15.04.2004 in respect of Survey No. 88/1/2 from the village
Ahmedpur, which have also been relied on by the present claimants in
their respective references. These sale instances relied by the claimants

63

1098.2018FA Group
are prior to the date of Section 4 notification dated 03.10.2004. He
would submit that those sale deeds are executed after taking
permission of the Charity Commissioner, as the lands were sold by way
of tender process and not by auction process as argued by Acquiring
Body.
He would submit that, in the parity judgment, this Court has
observed that, the Survey No. 2 is in close proximity with the acquired
lands. Hence, the price range of rates of sale deeds of Survey No. 2 have
been considered while fixing the compensation of acquired lands. It is
submitted that the same Survey No. 2 is in close proximity with the
acquired lands in the present appeals and as the lands were acquired for
the same project, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land
owners, to pay more to some and less to others, when the purpose of
acquisition is the same and lands are identical and similar.
He would also submit that for the purpose of compensation for
trees, the claimants have adduced evidence of CW-2 Dr. Keshav Ramrao
Pawar at Exhibit 21, which should have been accepted by the Reference
Court in its entirety, and the price should have been enhanced
accordingly, instead of giving only 50% rise over the compensation
awarded by the SLAO.

64

1098.2018FA Group
Lastly he prayed that compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per
sq.ft., be granted for the acquired lands as granted in the parity
judgment and prayed for enhancement in compensation for trees.
7. Learned advocates Mr. G.K. Sontakke, Mr. V.B Patil and Mr. S. S.
Halkude adopted the arguments of learned Advocate Mr. A. V. Sakolkar
and claimed parity and prayed for compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/-
per sq. ft.
8. All the advocates would submit that the Acquiring Body/State has
not adduced any evidence before the Reference Court except filing of a
written statement.
9. The various judgments relied by learned advocates for the
claimants/X-objectors are discussed hereinbelow :-
10. To point out the factors required to be taken into consideration
while determining the potentiality of land, learned advocates for the
claimants/X-objectors have relied on the following judgments:
1. Collector, Raigarh Vs. Harsing Thakur; AIR 1979 SC
472
2. P. Ram Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer,
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority; 1995
DGLS (SC) 148

65

1098.2018FA Group
11. To substantiate the contention that sale instances relating to
smaller pieces of land can be considered while determining
compensation for large tracts of land, learned advocates for the
claimants/X-objectors have relied on the following judgments:
1. Bhagwathula Samanna Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land
Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam;
1991 DGLS (SC) 477
2. Thakusibhai Devjibhai and Ors. Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat
and Anr.; 2001 (2) LACC 319
3. Executive Engineer (C), MSEB, Nagapur Vs. Uttamrao Bapurao
Raut and Ors.; 2009 (6) ALL MR 827
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb;
2011(8-9) SBR 494
12. To fortify the submission regarding the applicability of the
principle of parity and the settled principles governing determination of
compensation in land acquisition proceedings, learned advocates for the
claimants/X-objectors have relied on the following judgments:
1. Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special LAO; 1988 Bom.L.R. (90)
282
2. Union of India Vs. Bal Ram; 2004 DGLS (SC) 59
3. Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta and Ors.; AIR 2005 SC 3708
(1)
4. Bayaji Tatya Kalunge Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2007 (Supp.)
Bom.C.R. 771
5. Special LAO Vs. M.K. Rafiq; 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 9

66

1098.2018FA Group
6. Salaha Begaum Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer; 2012
DGLS (SC) 650
7. Ambaji Dharma Pardeshi Vs. State of Maharashtra; Civil Appeal
No. 5088-5089 of 2013
8. Dhiraj Singh (D) TR. Vs. Haryana State; MANU/SC/0778/2014
9. Pehlad Ram Vs. Haryana Urban Authority; 2014 R.C.R. (Civil)
(1) 316
10. Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. ; Civil Misc. Review No. 1744702 of
2015
11. Madhukanta M. Chinchani and Ors. Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer and Anr.; 2016 DGLS (SC) 334
12. Ali Mohammad Beigh and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir; 2017 DGLS (SC) 316
13. Narendra and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.; 2017
DGLS (SC) 926
14. Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Vs. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer and Ors.; MANU/SC/1745/2019
15. G. Hanumantharao Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Shimoga; AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 310
16. Ajaipal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.;
2021 DGLS (SC) 495
17. Anil Kumar Soti and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2021
DGLS (SC) 804
18. State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander ;2023 Scale (2) 588
19. Kamlabai Ganeshsingh Parihar Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2023
DGLS (Bom) 2973
20. Priyadarshan Bharti Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2024 DGLS
(Bom.) 3270
21. Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.; 2025 DGLS
(SC) 692

67

1098.2018FA Group
13. To emphasize the contention that when several sale exemplars
relating to similar lands are available, the highest bonafide sale
exemplar must be considered, learned advocates for the claimants/X-
objectors have relied on the judgment in Manohar and Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.; 2025 DGLS (SC) 998
14. Learned advocates for the claimants/X-objectors have relied on
the judgment in Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur
Vs. Laxman Seetaram Neulkar (AIR Online 2020 Bom 1264) to contend
that if the true market value of the land is more than the rate claimed
by the landowner, it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair
compensation, and compensation can be awarded even more than what
is claimed.
15. In support of their contention that no fault can be found in the
valuer's report, learned advocates for the claimants/X-objectors have
relied on the judgment in Pandhari Dhondiba Nukulwad Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. (2020 (2) Mh.L.J. 412), wherein it is observed
that objection to a valuation report cannot be taken merely on the
ground that prior notice was not given by the expert, as the valuer was
engaged by the claimants and there is no requirement in law to issue

68

1098.2018FA Group
notice to the government while carrying out valuation of trees through
a private valuer.
Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in Chindha Fakira
Patil Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon (AIR 2012 SC
481) to contend that expert valuation of fruit-bearing trees ought to be
considered and should not be rejected in the absence of any evidence to
the contrary.
16. Controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellants, learned Advocate Mr. S. G. Sangle appearing for the
acquiring body opposed the appellants’ claim for compensation on the
basis of parity. He would submit that, the rates granted in the parity
judgment cannot be applied ipso facto to the facts of the instant case as
the material evidence which formed basis for determination of market
value was essentially sale instances from Survey No. 2 whereas in the
present appeals, the claimants have relied on sale deeds dated
10.02.2004 and 15.04.2004 of Survey No. 88/1/2 which are though
discussed in the parity judgment, the price is not fixed on its basis. The
sale deeds have been executed in favour of the family members or
persons known to the claimants. The sale instances were sham,
collusive transactions were entered into to jack up prices of lands to
inflate market value of acquired land. The sale instances are post

69

1098.2018FA Group
Section 4 notification as the Section 4 notification was published in
official gazette on 01.01.2004 and the sale instances are dated
10.02.2004 and 15.04.2004. Moreover, the sale instances are a result of
auction sales and auction sales do not furnish a sale guide for
determination of market value and hence the Reference Court should
not have relied on these sale instances.
He would submit that acquired lands were purely agricultural,
were from no development zone, sale instances relied were essentially
auction purchase transactions, sale instances are not genuine, lacked
bonafides, were commercial transactions, the chronological sale
transaction indicates knowledge and not a mere coincidence, hence in
view of submissions, appeals filed by the acquiring body be allowed and
appeals filed by the claimants be dismissed.
17. Learned Government Pleader Mr. A. B. Girase, appearing for the
State and learned Advocate Mr. Ram Deshpande appearing for the
acquiring body, adopted the arguments of learned Advocate Mr. S. G.
Sangle.
18. The various judgments relied by learned advocates for the
acquiring body/State are discussed hereinbelow :-

70

1098.2018FA Group
19. To buttress the submission that element of competition in auction
sales renders them unsafe guides for determining the market value,
learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body and the State have
relied on the judgment in Karnataka Housing Board Vs. Land
Acquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors.; 2011 (2) SCC 246, wherein it is held
that:
“There is therefore every likelihood of auction price being
either higher or lower than the real market price,
depending upon the nature of sale. As a result, courts are
wary of relying upon auction sale transactions when other
regular traditional sale transactions are available while
determining the market value of the acquired land. This
Court in Raj Kumar v. Haryana State observed that, the
element of competition in auction sales makes them unsafe
guides for determining the market value.”
Reliance is also placed on the following judgments which
reiterate the same principle :
1. Rajkumar & Ors. Vs. Haryana State & Ors.; 2007 (7) SCC 609
2. Major Gen. Kapil Mehra & Ors. Vs. Union of India; 2015 (2) SCC
262
3. Barla Ram Reddy Vs. State of Telangana; 2025 DGLS (SC) 5059

71

1098.2018FA Group
20. To point out the settled position of law that bona fide sale
transactions should be considered while determining the market value
and not got-up sale instances executed with prior knowledge of the
proposed acquisition, reliance is placed on the judgment in Land
Acquisition Officer, Eluru Vs. Jasti Rohini reported in 1995 (1) SCC
717 ,
“The reasonable method to determine the market value of the
acquired land is on the evidence of transactions of bonafide sales
of acquired land, but not on evidence of sales of such land got up
having had knowledge of the proposed acquisition, the former
would furnish reasonable basis to determine the compensation.
In its absence, bonafide sales but not manipulated sales of the
lands in the neighborhood possessed of same or similar quality
and having the same or similar advantages would give an
unerring assurance to the court to determine just and proper
compensation. Such sales must not be established as a fact by
examining either the vendor or the vendee. Marking of certified
copies of sale deeds are not proof of either the contents or the
circumstances in which it came to be executed. Bonafide sale or
series of sales of small pieces of land do not furnish the sole basis
to determine market value. Bonafide sales may furnish evidence
of the market conditions for consideration. Fixation of market
value on the basis of the basic valuation register is, therefore,
illegal and unsustainable.”
Learned advocates have also relied on the following judgments in
which the similar principle is reiterated:
1. M.V. K. Gundarao Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer,
(LAO) ,Narasaraopet ; (1996) 3 SCC 129

72

1098.2018FA Group
2. Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. ; AIR 2011 SC 2458
21. Controverting the submissions of the claimants, learned advocates
appearing for the acquiring body and the State, have relied on the
judgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Land Acquisition Officer,
Poona reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that “Only genuine instances have to be taken into
account. Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of
acquisition.”
22. The learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body and the
State have relied on the judgment in Shaji Kuriakose Vs. I.O.C. reported
in 2001 (7) SCC 650, to indicate the factors required to be satisfied
while relying upon comparable sale instances for determining the
market value.
"The factors laid down are: (1) the sale must be a genuine
transaction, that (2) the sale deed must have been executed at
the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under
Section 4 of the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sale must be
in the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by
the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and that (5) the
size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the
land acquired."

73

1098.2018FA Group
23. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Dollar
Company, Madras Vs. Collector of Madras reported in 1975 (2) SCC
730 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:

24. While opposing the claim of the claimants on the point of
credibility of evidence, expert evidence and report, the learned
advocates appearing for the State have relied on the judgment in the
case of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Works, Jalgaon Vs. Vitthal
Damodar Patil and Anr. reported in (2019) 7 SCC 225 wherein it was
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the High Court in that
case had misapplied the decision in Chindha Fakira Patil. “There is no
proper analysis of the oral evidence which has come on record in the
present case and more so the efficacy of lengthy cross-examination of
the said witness by the appellant in respect of matters such as his
eligibility, competence and including credibility, reliability and

74

1098.2018FA Group
admissibility of the evidence given by him regarding the contents of the
valuation report.”
Learned advocates have also relied on the judgment in State of
H.P. Vs. Jai Lal reported in 1999 DGLS (SC) 964 where the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed :
"(17) SECTION 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of
experts admissible lays down that when the court has to form an
opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to
identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon
that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science
or art, or in questions as to identify of handwriting, or finger
impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the
evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that
he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special
experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has
adequate knowledge of the subject.
(18) AN expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of
an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish
the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the
accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his
independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the
facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion
evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor
and often an important factor for consideration along with the
other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness
depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and
the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his
conclusions.
(19) THE report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence
automatically. He is to be examined as a witness in court and has
to face cross-examination. This court in the case of Hazi
Mohammed Ikramul Haque v. State of West Bengal concurred
with the finding of the High court in not placing any reliance
upon the evidence of an expert witness on the ground that his
evidence was merely an opinion unsupported by any reasons."

75

1098.2018FA Group
The same principle has been followed in the case of State of
Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Bhimdeo Rattu Rathod and Ors. reported in
2022 DGLS (Bom.) 345 .
25. Learned advocates for the acquiring body and State have relied
upon the judgment in Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta, reported in AIR
2005 SC 3708, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the
parameters to be considered while determining the market value of
acquired land for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation,
which are reproduced below:
"23. While determining the amount of compensation payable in
respect of the lands acquired by the State, indisputably the market
value therefor has to be ascertained. There exist different modes
therefor.
24. The best method, as is well-known, would be the amount
which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In
absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take
recourse to various other known methods. Evidences admissible
therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in
respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or
neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in absence of
any other evidence like deed of sale, report of expert and other
relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value."
Reliance is also placed on Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu and
Ors. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram reported in (1980) 1
SCC 575 to emphasize that the best evidence of market value is

76

1098.2018FA Group
afforded by genuine sale transactions relating to the acquired land itself,
provided, the authenticity of such transactions is not in doubt.
Similar principle governing determination of the market value on
the basis of genuine and comparable sale instances have also been
reiterated in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Vs.
Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib reported in (2002) 3 SCC 688 and State
of Goa Vs. Kissan V. Gaonkar reported in 2005 (2) Goa LR 95
26. To contend that no prudent person would come forward to
purchase a vast extent of land on square feet basis, reliance is placed on
Shakuntalabai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1996) 2
SCC 152, wherein it is held :
"5. It is seen that the reference court blissfully overlooked
the admission of the owner on the surmise that it is an
estimate made by the claimant and the evidence of the sale
deeds under Exs. 38 and 44 being prevailing prices, it acted
thereon and determined the compensation. The approach of
the reference court is clearly illegal and that of the High
Court is quite correct and it was the only way in which the
market value could be determined on the face of the
evidence on record. The reference court committed manifest
error in determining the compensation on the basis of sq. ft.
When lands of an extent of 20 acres are offered for sale in
an open market, no willing and prudent purchaser would
come forward to purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft.
basis. Therefore, the reference court has to consider the
valuation sitting on the armchair of a willing prudent
hypothetical vendee and to put a question to itself whether

77

1098.2018FA Group
in given circumstances, he would agree to purchase the land
on sq. ft. basis. No feat of imagination is necessary to reach
the conclusion. The answer is obviously no. This aspect of
the matter was totally ignored by the reference court and
mechanically accepted the two sale deeds to enhance the
compensation at a value of nearly Rs 35,000 per acre. In
State of M.P. v. Shantabhail and V.M. Salgoacar & Brother
Ltd. v. Union of India², this Court had accepted the principle
that when the owner himself has purchased the land under
acquisition, the consideration mentioned in the sale deed
would form the basis to determine the market value.
Though the High Court has relied on the sale deeds under
Exs. 65 and 66 relating to the lands in Nityanand Nagar
Colony, it is also necessary to go into that aspect of the
matter in the view we have stated above."
27. On the point that sale instances relating to smaller pieces of land
cannot be considered while deciding claims or fixing compensation as to
large pieces of land, learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body
and the State have relied on the judgment in the case of Prithvi Raj
Taneja Vs. The State of M.P. and Anr. reported in AIR 1977 SC 1560
wherein it is held in Para 6 that,
"..... We agree with the High Court that the price paid for small
plots of land cannot provide a safe criterion for determining the
amount of compensation for a vast area of land. We may in this
context refer to a recent judgment in the case of Smt. Padma
Uppal Vs. State of Punjab, C.A. Nos. 2339 and 2403 of 1972, D/-
23-8-1976 : (reported in AIR 1977 SCC 580) wherein this Court
observed that it is well settled that in determining compensation
the value fetched for small plots of land cannot be applied to the
lands covering a very large area and that the large area of land
cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots
area sold."

78

1098.2018FA Group
Same principle is reiterated in the following judgments :
1. Smt. Padma Uppal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.; (1977)
1 SCC 330
2. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Digambar Bhimashankar
Tandale and Ors.; 1997 (1) Bom.C.R. 582
3. Karnataka Urban Water supply and Drainage Board, etc. Vs. K.S.
Gangadharappa and Another ; 2009 DGLS (SC) 584
28. In support of his contention that, it is the duty of the State or
federal government to see that the compensation is just, not merely to
the individual whose property is taken but, to the public which is to pay
for it, learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body and the State
have relied on the judgment in Dollar Company, Madras Vs. Collector of
Madras reported in 1975 (2) SCC 730 and also on Union of India Vs
Pramod Gupta (D) by LRs and others wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed, “The Courts will also have to take into
consideration the enormity of the financial implication of enhancement
in view of the size of the land acquired for a particular project.”
29. The learned advocate appearing for the acquiring body has placed
reliance on the following judgments to substantiate the point that Sale
Deeds executed post section 4 notification cannot be relied upon:
1. A. Natesam Pillai Vs. Sp. Tahasildar, Land Acquisition Tiruchy ;
(2010) 9 SCC 118

79

1098.2018FA Group
2. Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P, & Anr. ; (2013) 16 SCC 392
30. While refuting the claim of the claimants on the ground of parity,
learned advocates for the acquiring body/State have placed reliance on
various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, to
highlight that it has been consistently held by the Courts that
compensation cannot be determined by mechanically following earlier
awards or judgments relating to other lands. Judgments and awards not
inter partes are not binding for determination of market value and may
only constitute as a piece of evidence which can be relied upon only if
the lands are proved to be comparable in terms of location, potentiality
and other relevant advantages. These principles of law are laid down in
the following judgments :
In Smt. Padma Uppal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.
reported in (1977) 1 SCC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
as, "The contention of counsel for the appellants that compensation
should have been awarded treating the entire land as potential building
area is devoid of substance. It is true that the land in question
constitutes one block but it cannot be overlooked that the entire area
thereof is not similarly situate and does not possess the same or similar
advantages and benefits."

80

1098.2018FA Group
Basant Kumar & others Vs. Union of India & others, reported in
1996(11) SCC 542 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in
para:
"5. Shri N.C. Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, The question is: whether the appellants are entitled to
the same compensation as was determined by the High Court in
the appeals arising out of Raghubir Singh's came and Chet Ram's
case? It has been firmly settled law by beadrole of decisions of
this Court that the Judge determining the compensation under
Section 23(1) should sit in the arm chair of a willing prudent
purchaser in an open market and see whether he would offer the
same amount proposed to be fixed as market value as a willing
and prudent buyer for the same or similar land, i.e., land
possessing all the advantageous features and of same extent. This
test should always be kept in view and answer affirmatively,
taking in to consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. If
feats of imagination are allowed to sway he out steps his domain
of judicial decision and lands in misconduct amenable to
disciplinary law. We have gone through the record and judgments
in Chet Ram's case and Raghubir Singh's case decided by the two
Division Benches. The learned judges have adopted the principal
that the entire lands in the village shall be treated as one unit and
the compensation shall uniformly be determined on that basis.
The principal is wholly unsustainable in law and cannot be a
valid ground for determination of compensation. It is common
knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands command
same market value. The lands abutting main road or national
highway command higher market value and as the location goes
Backward, market value of interior land would less even for same
kind of land. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed
of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages
offer comparable parity of the value; it is common knowledge
that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. In this
case it is seen that land is as vast as admeasuring 1669 bighas, 18
biswas of land in the village. So, all lands cannot and should not
be classified as possessed of same market value. Burden is always

81

1098.2018FA Group
on the claimant to prove the market value and the Court should
adopt realistic standards and pragmatic approach in evaluation of
the evidence. No doubt, each individual have different parcels of
the land out of that vast land. If that principle is accepted as
propounded by the High Court, irrespective of the quality of the
land, all will be entitled to the same compensation. That principal
is not the correct approach in law. The doctrine of equality in
determination and payment of same compensation for all
claimants involved in the same notification is not good principal
acceptable for the aforestated reasons. When both the lands are
proved to be possessed of same advantages, features etc, then
only equal compensation is permissible.
6. It is then to be seen that the learned judges have further
pointed Therefore, the principle laid down by the Court in the
said two cases is obviously illegal and cannot form a legal basis,
though these judgments became final, we cannot repeat, on
principal of parity, same illegality."
Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 2018
SC (Supp.) 247 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in
para:
"14. In our opinion, the High Court could not have placed an
outright reliance on the decision of Swaran Singh's case, without
considering the nature of transaction relied upon in the said
decision. The decision could not have been applied ipso facto to
the facts of the instant case. In such cases, where such
judgments/awards are relied on as evidence, though they are
relevant, but cannot be said to be binding with respect to the
determination of the price, that has to depend on the evidence
adduced in the case. However, in the instant case, it appears that
the land in Swaran Singh's case was situated just across the road
as observed by the High Court as such it is relevant evidence but
not binding. As such it could have been taken into consideration
due to the nearness of the area, but at the same time what was

82

1098.2018FA Group
the nature of the transaction relied upon in the said case was also
required to be looked into in an objective manner. Such decisions
in other cases cannot be adopted without examining the basis for
determining compensation whether sale transaction referred to
therein can be relied upon or not and what was the distance, size
and also bonafide nature of transaction before such
judgments/awards are relied on for deciding the subsequent
cases. It is not open to accepting determination in a mechanical
manner without considering the merit. Such determination
cannot be said to be binding. We have come across several
decisions where the High Court is adopting the previous decisions
as binding.
It is not proper to ignore the evidence adduced in the case at
hand. The compensation cannot be determined by blindly
following the previous award/judgment. It has to be considered
only a piece of evidence not beyond that. Court has to apply the
judicial mind and is supposed not to follow the previous awards
without due consideration of the facts and circumstances and
evidence adduced in the case in question.
15. The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being
inter parties are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have
seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly probably
under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair
treatment. The courts are being swayed away and this approach
in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is
causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment
in the case of unequal's. As per situation of a village, nature of
land its value differ from the distance to distance even two to
three- kilometer distance may also make the material difference
in value. Land abutting Highway may fetch higher value but not
land situated in interior villages.
16. The previous awards/judgments are the only piece of
evidence at par with comparative sale transactions. The similarity
of the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to be
proved like any other comparative exemplar. In case previous
award/judgment is based on exemplar, which is not similar or
acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to

83

1098.2018FA Group
be binding. Such determination has to be out rightly rejected. In
case some mistake has been done in awarding compensation, it
cannot be followed on the ground of parity an illegality cannot be
perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant."
Further reliance is placed on the following judgments while
opposing the claim of parity:
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Lakhamsi Ghelabhai; AIR
1960 Bom 78
2. Karan Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India ; (1997) 8 SCC 186
3. Union of India Vs. Ram Phool & Anr.; (2003) 10 SCC 167
4. Ranvir Singh and Anr. Vs. Union of India; (2005) 12 SCC 59
5. Vikrambhai Bhagabhai Patel Vs. Dy. Gen. Manager, ONGC;
2021 (20) SCC 574
6. Ramrao Shankar Tapase Vs. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation and Others ; (2022) 7 SCC 563
7. State of M.P. Vs. Radheshyam and Ors.; 2023 (17) SCC 528
31. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned
advocates for the respective parties.
32. In view of the above, the points that arise for consideration are:
A. Whether the claimants are entitled to the enhanced
amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq.
ft. as granted in parity Judgment ?
B. Whether the claimants prove that they are entitled
for enhancement of compensation for trees, well and
structures?

84

1098.2018FA Group
33. For the sake of convenience, the details as to the date of Section
4 notification, date of award, rate awarded by the SLAO, date of
Reference Court judgment, rate awarded by the Reference Court,
interest awarded by the Reference Court, survey numbers of acquired
lands, compensation awarded for acquired trees/structures in respect
of the acquired lands falling under the judgment and order of this
court dated 16.09.2019 and the present appeals, are given in tabular
format as under:
IN PARITY JUDGMENT:

85

1098.2018FA Group
IN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS:

WITNESSES EXAMINED IN PARITY JUDGMENT:

86

1098.2018FA Group
WITNESSES EXAMINED IN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS:

SALE DEEDS CONSIDERED IN PARITY JUDGMENT:

87

1098.2018FA Group

SALE DEEDS RELIED ON IN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS:

34 . Here, it will be apposite to refer to some of the judgments
wherein, the Court has granted compensation on the basis of parity.
In the case of Bhim Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,
reported in AIR 2003 SC 4382, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that, “when compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in
earlier proceedings and when in one such proceedings this Court has
already approved the rate fixed, then, in our view the best method
would be to look at the earlier judgment and awards. Therefore, the
High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the
basis of earlier judgments.”

88

1098.2018FA Group
In the case of Bayaji Tatya Kalunge Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in, 2007 (2) ALL MR 316, this Court has held that when lands
are acquired for the same purpose and are situated in the same village
under same notification then the appellants are similarly situated to the
other claimants who have been granted compensation at enhanced
rates. Therefore, the appellants are also entitled for the same
compensation.
In the case of Salaha Begum & Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, reported in, 2013 (11) SCC 426, the lands were acquired by
way of two different notifications but, for the same purpose. The sale
deeds relied in both the cases were also the same. Therefore, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that, “Once the High Courts accepted
the sale deeds dated 07.01.1993 as the touchstone for determination of
the compensation payable for identically situated land, there could be
no justification for awarding less compensation to the appellants.”
In the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. Vs. State of J & K,
reported in, AIR 2017 SC 1518, it was observed that when acquired
lands are more or less situated nearby, are identical and similar and the
land is acquired for the same purpose, even if the acquired lands are
situated in three different villages, it would be unfair to discriminate
between the land owners and to pay less compensation than what is
paid to the other similarly situated land owners was laid down.

89

1098.2018FA Group
In the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs Vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., reported in (2020) 19 SCC 599,
the Supreme Court reaffirmed the view in that when appellants are also
similarly placed claimants, they are entitled to seek parity and claim the
same amount of fair and compensation as has been awarded to the
other land owners.
In the case of Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,
reported in AIR 2025 SC 2468, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that irrespective of whether the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants
pertain to the same village as the acquired lands, the same set of
exemplars must be applied uniformly across both villages and that,
artificial boundaries created for administrative convenience cannot be
allowed to obstruct the application of the fundamental principles of
fairness.
35. As such, the exposition of law enunciated in the aforesaid
authorities is squarely applicable in the present situation, wherein the
legal position is well settled that where lands situated in the same
village or nearby areas are acquired under same, prior, or
contemporaneous notifications for the same purpose, the landholders
who are similarly placed are entitled to the same rate of compensation.

90

1098.2018FA Group
36. The judgments relied upon by the respondents deal with aspects
such as credibility of evidence, auction sale unreliability, small-plot
comparability for large land compensation, public interest in fair
compensation, and limits on parity claims and hence, these decisions
have no application to the facts of the present case. Here, the claimants
only seek parity with an earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench of this
Court, relating to lands from the same village acquired for the same
project.
In these circumstances, uniform valuation cannot be denied
merely on the ground of minor variations in sale exemplars as, such
denial would result in unjust discrimination. The precedents cited by
the respondents, therefore, do not assist their case and cannot be used
to defeat the claim of the petitioners.
37. With regard to the contention of learned advocate for
respondents that the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants cannot be
considered as those are of post section 4 notification date and that the
sale transactions were entered into on the basis of prior knowledge of
the acquisition proceedings which has resulted in higher price in sale
deeds. After careful reading of section 4, it is clear that the last date for
Section 4 publication is the date of giving public notice, while passing
the award. Hence, on considering the provision and relevant dates, it is
clear that the date of giving public notice/village publication i.e.

91

1098.2018FA Group
03.10.2004 is the last date and hence, the date of publication of section
4 notification in the present case. Also, on careful perusal of the
material brought on record, it is found that the sale instances relied by
the claimants are a result of tender process and not auction
proceedings. The sale deeds are dated 10.02.2004 and 15.04.2004 i.e.
before the date of publication of section 4 notification and hence, can
be relied upon.
38. Thus, the judgments relied on by the advocates for the acquiring
body in regard that, Sale Deeds executed post section 4 notification
cannot be relied upon and that the element of competition in auction
sales makes them unsafe guides for determining the market value are
not applicable to the facts of the present case as, the sale deeds relied
on in the present case pertain to the lands which were sold by way of
tender process and not by auction process.
39. In the parity judgment, the Court has given the reasons for non-
acceptance of sale deeds from survey nos. 86 & 88 and reasons for
placing reliance for fixing the market price on the basis of sale deeds
from survey no. 2 and has also discussed the parity grounds in
paragraph nos.126 to 139 which are reproduced below:
"126. Sale deeds produced and relied on by the
claimants are in respect of lands survey No. 2,
86 and 88. Those are of plots in land within

92

1098.2018FA Group
municipal limits having non agriculture use
permission. The lands under most of the sale
deeds were allowed NA use since 1972 to 1986.
Lands under sale deeds were better placed and
were better developed. Said lands are forming
hub of the city and are developed lands.
127. Lands Survey No. 86 and 88 and their sub
divisions are very close to Ahmedpur-Latur road
and are either very close to or are almost in
gaothan. Land survey No. 2 is situated on
northern side of Ahmedpur-Amajogai road. Map
Exhibit-33 depicts that land survey No. 2 is
abutting Ahmedpur gaothan and is very close to
Latur - Nanded highway. Kalegaon road passes
through land survey No. 2. Survey No. 2 is in
closer proximity to acquired lands as compared
to lands Survey No. 86 and 88.
128. In such a case, proper and safer way, as has
been considered by the reference courts taking
into account certain Supreme Court judgments,
appears to be to arrive at market value of the
acquired lands taking cue from the sale deeds
of lands in closer proximity to the acquired
lands.
129. From the distance point of view, land Survey
No. 202 is closer to land Survey No.2. In the
circumstances, sale deeds from survey No. 2
may serve as indicator and guide. But land
survey No. 2 is not abutting or adjacent to any
of acquired lands. Acquired land survey No. 202
which is comparatively closer to Survey No. 2
appears to be separated by quite some distance.
Sale deeds from land Survey No. 2 are in
respect of developed area.
130. Though latitude will have to be given to that
some portions from the acquired lands were
being used for non-agriculture purposes from
quite a few years, yet those were not fully
developed lands at the time of acquisition. No
other acquired lands had NA permission nor is
there any evidence about said lands being used
for NA purpose. Despite NA permissions being
granted to small portions from acquired lands
from 1990 onwards up to 1998, no further non-

93

1098.2018FA Group
agricultural developments have come up in the
adjoining areas of acquired lands. Not a single
sale instance from the acquired lands is
produced, either of past or for the period post
1998. This gives indication of that no
developments worth the name were taking
place and the rate of developments was
extremely slow and tardy. Coupled with this
there is no material produced in respect of
developments over acquired lands or even over
any adjoining lands.
131. There is generally paucity of developmental
facilities for areas at distance from mainland
city. There is no evidence in respect of
availability of developmental facilities for
acquired lands which are at quite some distance
from main town.
132. This gives indication of that the rates at which
lands plots were sold from survey No. 2 would
not be fetched by acquired lands. Prices of
acquired lands, though may be having NA
potentiality, would be on downward side from
those of lands in Survey No. 2. Rates of
acquired lands would be not that of developed
lands. Additionally, expenses over developments
and betterment of the lands would have to be
taken into account, as considered by the
reference court. The rates would be
considerably less than the developed lands in
survey No. 2, with deductions for development
etc.
133. The special land acquisition officer had referred
to in the evidence that in respect of, inter alia,
non-agricultural lands, if sale transactions are
in acres, land rates are determined on acreage
and if transactions are on square foot basis, rate
is determined are per square foot. Lands of
claimants have non-agricultural potentiality,
ready reckoner rates of acquired lands are
contended to be 115/- 175/- and 350/- per
square meter.
134. It appears that reference to decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of “Special Land
Acquisition Officer BTDA, Bagalkot V/s Md.

94

1098.2018FA Group
Hanif” reported in 2002 (4) SBR 273, would be
pertinent. In said case compensation given on
per square foot basis has been endorsed by the
Supreme Court as the lands were within the
municipal limits, while special land acquisition
officer had given rate on per Acre basis. In the
present case, there is no serious dispute on that
lands under acquisition are also from municipal
limits. There appears to be substance in the
contention of the claimants that evidence
suggests, rates would have to be determined on
per square foot basis as the lands borne NA
potentiality. Thus, aforesaid judgment can be
taken into account. Following said decision, it
would not be improper to consider
determination of market value of lands on
square foot basis.
……….
...........
...........
...........
139. Going by the decision in the matter “Bayaji
Tatya Kalunge V/s State of Maharashtra”
reported in 2007 (2) ALL MR 316, it may not be
improper as considered by reference court that
if the lands are situated in same village,
acquired for same project under same
notification, in that case claimants are entitled
to compensation at the same rate on the ground
of parity. Since lands acquired are for the same
project and are being acquired under
notifications issued in close proximity, the
reference court had considered that if the lands
are acquired for same project under same
notification, same rate can be awarded.
40. Taking into consideration the parity judgment and the
comparative charts, we find the following similarities in appeals under
consideration :

95

1098.2018FA Group
1) Firstly, the lands are acquired for the purpose of the same
project i.e., construction of Kalegaon Storage Tank.
2) Secondly, the Section 4 notifications are issued
contemporaneously in the years 2004, 2005, 2006 in the present
group of first appeals and in the year 2007 in the case of the
judgment & order relied on.
3) Thirdly, the lands under acquisition in the present group of
first appeals and those under acquisition in the case of the
judgment relied on, are situated adjacent to each other, in the
same vicinity and extremely in close proximity.
4) Fourthly, the evidence in the form of Sale Deeds relied upon
by the claimants in the present group of first appeals also forms
part of the evidence considered by this Court in the parity
judgment.
5) Fifthly, the claimants have produced the map pointing out
that the acquired lands are within the municipal limits of
Ahmedpur City. The maps depict locations of lands including the
lands under acquisition. The lands of the present claimants are
situated in Survey Nos.237, 238, 250, 269, 270, 271, 240, 246,
247, 249, 250, 251, 223, 252, 253, 255, 256, 260 and the
acquired lands in the parity judgment are situated in Survey Nos.
275, 202, 274, 241, 242, 245, 246, 256 and 257. It appears that

96

1098.2018FA Group
the lands are in proximity with each other and some survey
numbers are also common. In the parity judgment it is mentioned
that Survey Nos. 237 to 271 are in the Municipal Council Limits.
This letter is not disputed by the State and the acquiring body.
Claimants in the present group of first appeals have also produced
a letter from the Municipal Council office stating that the Survey
Nos. 237 to 271 fall within the Municipal Council Limits.
Therefore, it is clear that the acquired lands of the present
claimants in these groups of First Appeals are situated adjacent to
and in the same Gat numbers as the acquired lands in parity
judgment.
41. Applying the aforesaid conclusions, the claimants in the
present group of appeals being similarly placed as the claimants in
the parity judgment, they are entitled for parity in compensation as
has been awarded in the parity Judgment.
In the parity judgment while fixing the rate, this Court
has observed that :-
"135. The price range of rates of sale deeds of Survey
No. 2, for the year 2005 appears to be between
` 129/-, ` 150/-, ` 150/ and ` 227/- per square
foot. Average rate for sale deeds of lands in
Survey No. 2 would be ` 164/- per square foot.
Survey No. 2 is, as referred to above, a
developed area.

97

1098.2018FA Group
136. In the circumstances, rates determined by the
reference court in lands references in group I
and II appear to be far steeper in comparison to
the rates of compensation granted to land
Survey No. 202 in group III, which is closer in
proximity to land Survey No.2.
137. As referred to above, no sale instances could be
produced from the acquired lands or those from
immediately surrounding. Distance of lands
from highway and from the developments and
goanthan gives indication of that developments,
if any, were extremely tardy. No sales of lands
from near areas either were taking place or
were not being sold at rate demanded by
claimants. This is indeed a pointer to that lands
would not have fetched at all rates expected by
claimants and would be considerably less than
the lands in Survey No. 2. Coupled with the
same, it would involve expenses over
betterment and developments.
138. As such, we consider that reasonably, rate
would have been less than half the average rate
of developed area of Survey No. 2 and taking
into account that expenses would have to be
incurred for development and betterment of
area, rates would be hovering around ` 60/-
per square foot for non-agriculture use lands
and about ` 50/- per square foot for other lands
around 2005. With 10% increase per year, in
2007 the rate would have been approximately
around ` 75/- per square foot for NA use lands
and ` 60/- per square foot for other lands."
42. Applying the same rate by adopting the same method, the rate is
fixed as follows :-
(i) In Group I, the date of Section 4 notification is 03.10.2004.
Applying 10% deduction, the rate of compensation for Group I is
fixed at Rs.45/- per sq. ft.

98

1098.2018FA Group
(ii) In Group V, the date of Section 4 notification is 03.12.2005. The
rate of compensation for Group V is fixed at Rs.50/- per sq. ft.
(iii) In Groups II, III and IV, the dates of Section 4 notification are
07.07.2006, 25.02.2006 and 07.07.2006, respectively. Applying
10% increase yearly, the rate of compensation for Groups II, III, IV
is fixed at Rs.55/- per sq. ft.
43. In the parity judgment, the award is modified to the extent of
granting interest from the date of award on the basis of full bench
judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari
reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. Those paragraphs from the parity
judgment are reproduced below:
"142. The courts have given along with rate of market value,
benefit of 12% p.a. additional component under section
23 (1-A) and 30% solatium under section 23 (2) of the
LA Act and interest from the date of notification under
section 4, for the first year at the rate of 9% p.a. and for
subsequent years at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of
payment to the claimants.
143. While the reference courts purport to grant interest on
market value, additional component and solatium from
the dates of notification under section 4 of the Act to the
date of actual payment, this particular direction / order
has been rendered unsustainable in view of declaration
of law over this aspect by full bench of this court in the
decision on reference reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457:

99

1098.2018FA Group
MANU/MH/0557/2016, in the case of “State of
Maharashtra V/s Kailas Shiva Rangari”.
144. In said judgment it has been clearly considered that
interest under section 34 of the Act would start running
from the date of possession only if possession is taken in
exercise of powers under section 17 of said Act. It has
been held that if possession of land under acquisition is
taken under section 16 of the Act, then interest would be
payable under section 34 from the date of passing of
award under section 11 of the Act.
145. In the present case, neither the parties have pleaded that
possession been taken from the claimants was in exercise
of powers under section 17 of the Act, nor it is their case
that procedure thereunder had been followed before
taking over the possession. So far as interest is
concerned, the area would be governed by the full bench
decision (supra).
146. In the circumstances, direction / order of the reference
courts to pay interest from the date of notification under
section 4 of the Act appears to be incompatible with
decision of full bench (supra) and that will have to be
altered and brought in tune with said decision."
44. In these appeals also, in Group Nos. I, II, III, IV, V, the interest is
granted from the date of Section 4 Notification. In Group Nos. II and
V, interest under Section 34 is awarded from the date of possession
till the payment of compensation granted by the SLAO. In all these
appeals, statutory interest of 9% be granted for the first year from the

100

1098.2018FA Group
date of passing of award and 15% till date of realisation of the
payment. Similarly, the claimants will not be entitled to interest
under section 34 as the claimants had not brought any evidence
showing that the possession was taken by following procedure laid
down under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 as observed
in paragraph nos.144 and 145 (supra). The point No. A is answered
accordingly.
As to Point No. B:-
45. The land acquisition references challenged in the parity judgment
were not having any fruit bearing trees. Hence, the point for
consideration was not framed in that regard. However, in the present
appeals, the compensation is granted to the fruit bearing trees, hence
the additional point is framed.
46. In group No. I in First Appeal No.1098/2018 arising out of L.A.R.
No.96/2011 and X-Objection No.104/2023 in First Appeal No.
809/2014 arising out of L.A.R. No.95/2011, valuer Keshav Ramrao
Pawar was examined by claimant. While deciding the price of the trees,
it was necessary for the valuer to mention height, condition, width and
spread of trees. The valuation made should have been supported by the
market rates of fruits by Agriculture and Horticulture Department of

101

1098.2018FA Group
Government of Maharashtra or Agricultural Produce Market Committee.
But such an exercise is not carried out by the expert valuer. The valuer
admitted that he did valuation on 24.10.2007 but prepared the report
much later i.e. on 01.12.2007. Valuer has not mentioned in his report as
to how much land is occupied by the trees so that it could have been
deducted while giving the compensation for land.
He has not prepared any Panchanama while preparing the
valuation report. After discussing the valuer’s evidence, the Reference
Court found that the price awarded by valuer is excessive and price
awarded by the SLAO is meagre. After observing this, the Reference
Court without there being any evidence has abruptly come to the
conclusion that it will be appropriate to enhance the trees compensation
by 50% of the price awarded by the SLAO. There is no reason given by
the Reference Court to enhance the compensation awarded by the
SLAO. The compensation is enhanced only on guess work without there
being any cogent evidence. Hence, we are of the opinion that there
cannot be any enhancement due to lack of evidence.
47. In group Nos. II and V, the reference Court has refused to enhance
the compensation of trees, well and structures by holding that while
passing the award, the SLAO has considered the valuation by the
District Superintendent Agricultural Officer and valuation done by the

102

1098.2018FA Group
Executive Engineer, Latur. Whereas, in reference the claimant has not
placed any valuation done by expert or placed any evidence regarding
valuation of trees, well and structures, stone bund. Therefore, for want
of evidence, the Reference Court has rightly refused to enhance the
compensation granted by SLAO. No interference is called in the said
observation made by the Reference Court.
48. In group III and IV, in First Appeal No.4216/2017 by claimant in
L.A.R. No.889/2008, Valuer Nandkumar Ganpatrao Patil was examined
but Reference Court has rightly refused to enhance the compensation of
trees as there was long gap in preparation of valuation report and
actual valuation carried on. Valuation was done on 07.07.2006 whereas
report was prepared on 11.07.2010 that is almost after gap of 4 years.
Valuer has not mentioned in his report what income the claimant was
getting from the fruit bearing trees he had planted and from the trees
which grew in his land naturally i.e. from the forest trees. Hence, for
lack of evidence the Reference Court has rightly refused to enhance the
compensation for trees by SLAO and no interference is called for in the
said observations. The point No. B is answered accordingly.

103

1098.2018FA Group
49. The statutory interest is maintained as it is, as is granted in the
parity judgment in paragraph nos.154 and 155, which are reproduced
below:-
"154. In view of forgoing discussion and reasons, it
would be appropriate to consider that the acquired
lands would have fetched market value of about
Rs.75/- per square foot for NA use permitted lands
and Rs.60/- per square foot for the other lands. The
decision of the reference courts in respect of benefits
of provisions of the Act, viz; section 23 (1-A), 23 (2)
as referred to above, is not being disturbed. The date
of notification in village being the last, as reckoned by
reference court would be considered for calculations.
155. The direction under references or awards to
pay interest from the date of notification under
section 4 of the LA Act, stands altered and modified.
Interest under provisions of the LA Act would be
required to be paid from the date of passing of the
award under section 11 of the LA Act, in tune with
decision of full bench reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J.
457: MANU/MH/0557/2016. The authorities would
be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. for one year from
the date of award under section 11 on the
components of compensation referred to under
section 23, including 23 (1-A) and 23 (2) of the Act
and @ 15% p.a. subsequent to one year from the date
of award under section 11 till actual payment."
50. In the result, we pass the following order :-
O R D E R
(i) Appeals by claimants are partly allowed.
(ii) X-Objections by the claimants are partly allowed.
(iii) Appeals by acquiring body are partly allowed.

104

1098.2018FA Group
(iv) Judgments and Awards of the Reference Court challenged in all
the groups stand altered and modified as under :-
(a) Compensation be paid to claimants for their lands @
Rs.45/- per sq. ft. in Group I, Rs.50/- per sq. ft. in Group V
and Rs.55/- per sq. ft. in Group II, III and IV.
(b) Claimants be paid, in addition to aforesaid, an amount
calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. for the period commencing
from date of section 4 notification in respect of their acquired
lands to the date of award by Collector as provided under
section 23(1-A) of the LA Act.
(c) Claimants would also be paid solatium pursuant to
section 23(2) of the LA Act.
(d) Interest be paid on the compensation in accordance
with full bench judgment viz; 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457:
MANU/MH/0557/2016, in the case of `State of Maharashtra
Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari” from the date of award @ 9% p.a.
for first year and @ 15% p.a. for subsequent years till
payment of amount.
(e) It is made clear that the claimants shall not be entitled
for the amount of interest for the period of delay caused in
filing the first appeals, which are condoned by this Court, on
the said condition.
(f) The award amount was deposited by the acquiring
body either in the High Court or in the Trial Court and the
claimants were permitted to withdraw the said amount. The
claimants will be entitled to withdraw the remaining amount
along with accrued interest.
(g) Acquiring Body shall deposit the amount of compensation
within six (6) months from the date of uploading of this order.

105

1098.2018FA Group
(h) Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the Claimants
stands revoked.
(i) The claimants are required to pay the deficit court fees,
if any, on the enhanced amount of compensation. If the
deficit court fee is not paid by the claimants/X-objectors, then
the same shall be recovered/deducted from the enhanced
compensation amount.
(vii) All Appeals and X-Objections are disposed of accordingly.
(viii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
sga/

106